Despite Cumbria, our gun laws don't need tightening

To most Londoners, the words "gun crime" do not normally bring to mind an image of the beautiful Lake District, or of a deranged individual running amok with legally owned weapons.

Illegal hand guns appear to be so freely available in the capital that gang members are unlikely to bother with gun licences or stealing the sorts of guns that are used for sport.

The sawn-off shotgun used to be the villain's weapon of choice, when the Kray twins were young, but - like the nylon stocking pulled over the head - it has gone out of style.

But that won't stop some politicians wanting to be seen to take action after the appalling events in Cumbria, calling for gun licensing to be tightened. It happened after the Dunblane massacre in 1996. Legislation was duly introduced in 1997, without obvious benefit. It would be a mistake for this to happen again.

Britain already has some of the toughest gun laws in the world. In theory, only people of unimpeachably good character and sound mental health, who have a good reason for owning a gun, can obtain a licence. References must be supplied by, among others, the applicant's GP.

I say in theory because some outwardly sane men and women can harbour inner demons, as the baffling behaviour of Derrick Bird - a man who flipped without warning - bears out. Once owned, guns must be kept securely in gun cabinets, inspected by the police, and disabled when being transported.

These rules are rigorously enforced across Britain - so much so that it is impossible for Britain's Olympic shooting team to train in England, Scotland or Wales; they must travel instead to the Isle of Man or Switzerland to do so.

No doubt some chief constables will join the call for even more draconian rules. If there were no legally held guns, they would have one less task on their plate. They must resist these repressive instincts. Country people have to own guns.

They rely on them to control vermin: since the introduction of the Hunting Act, shooting foxes is the preferred method of killing them - and some of them do have to be killed to protect chickens, ducks and young pheasants.

There are far too many deer in the Highlands: they are destroying habitat for other creatures by nibbling young tree shoots. They have to be culled using rifles. Shooting pheasants, grouse and inanimate clay pigeons makes an important contribution to the rural economy; indeed it is the one activity that has kept some estates solvent during the farming slump.

If people want to ban shooting, they should argue for it on its own merits, not sneak in more legislation in response to Whitehaven. Across Britain - and in London most of all - people live with all manner of threats.

Terrorism has shown us how ingenious people who are bent on inflicting damage on a mass scale can be. Whitehaven is next to Sellafield. Could an individual get hold of nuclear waste? Probably not. But think of the damage that could be done with knives, chainsaws, even motor vehicles.

Tragically, Bird had guns to hand. If he hadn't, you can be sure he would have found something equally destructive to carry out his warped vengeance against humanity.